Glorious, glorious remakes abound as Disney plumbs the depths of its animated film library to essentially remake everything they can in live-action, repurposing classic films for a new generation. Already done with Maleficent (which at least tried to see things from the villain's view) and Cinderella, now they remake the final film ol' Walt himself was alive for the production of, The Jungle Book.
By now the plot is fairly well-known; man-cub Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is found as a child by Bagheera the Panther (Ben Kingsley) and raised by wolves. Of course man cannot exist peacefully with the animals, as the fearsome man-killer Shere Khan (Idris Elba) has a vendetta against the man cub, and so Mowgli must venture back to the man village or else be killed.
To call this a "live-action" film is being fairly generous, since the only live-action thing in it is Mowgli, acting on green screen to animals that were placed in later. To be fair, the film is gorgeous, and the photorealistic jungle settings are sights to behold. The animals are, for the most part, fairly convincing. They are pretty clearly CGI creations, but the fact that they talk makes their artificiality forgivable.
The voice actors are all, for the most part, suitable to their roles. It's a little bit distracting at first, but you get used to Bill Murray as Baloo and Scarlett Johansson as Kaa. The only miscast is Christopher Walken as King Louie; he has such a distinct voice that I never really saw the massive orangutang, instead seeing the man behind the facade.
Neel Sethi, on the other hand, is not very good, and I hate saying that about child actors. He brings a great physicality to the role, jumping through trees and running through fields. But his line readings are terribly flat, although it's hard not to blame him. It must be pretty hard, being a kid and having your first big acting gig be entirely on a green screen stage, imagining all the creatures around you.
In terms of adaptation, the movie does a good job of hitting the familiar beats of the story as told by Disney (most audiences, myself included, are probably more familiar with the animated film rather than the book). There's enough that feels fresh here that makes the movie worth recommending. Not everything is exactly the same as the old one (no mop-top Beatles-lite Vultures), and the central conflict between Mowgli and Shere Khan is a little more interesting (although it is slightly boring that Shere Khan killed Mowgli's father and orphaned him).
My biggest gripe is with the songs; "Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You" are redone, but none of the other songs are. It's fairly odd when Baloo and Louie break out into song for no reason other than "this song was in the original and we have to redo because it's what audiences remember." The moments don't entirely work and pull me out of the world the movie has built.
But, otherwise, this is worth checking out. The visuals are stunning, and though I did not see this in 3D, I did see a trailer for it in 3D a while back and was blown away by it. In terms of remakes and adaptations, this is a pretty solid one. I'm not sure we needed it, and will be interesting to see how audiences receive Andy Serkis' version in two years, but for now, this is a solid piece of entertainment.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Friday, April 8, 2016
Zootopia (2016)
Zootopia, the 55th official animated movie out of Disney Animation Studios, is a surprisingly relevant story with real world analogies that will get adults thinking and teach kids about tolerance. Disney has always been one to poke fun at its own formula as of late, and Zootopia continues this trend by featuring standard tropes with some nice twists.
Set in an anthropomorphic world where animals have evolved beyond their roles as predator and prey, the movie follows Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny determined to be the first rabbit on the police force in the metropolis of Zootopia. Its the same "if you work hard, you can achieve your dreams" angle that is a favorite of the Disney stable, but rarely have they applied it to someone breaking the mold and tearing down stereotypes.
After she graduates as valedictorian and is assigned to ZPD (Zootopia Police Department), she moves to the big city from her humble small town and discovers that the urban environment is not very friendly, and that just because she was the best at her school, she will not get special treatment (her chief is a Ram played by Idris Elba, a great touch). Assigned to parking duty, she eventually snags a piece of a larger case involving missing animals, and sets out to solve the mystery or else lose her job.
The film plays draws interesting parallels to real world racial tensions; rabbits have preconceived notions about foxes as wily, sly, and untrustworthy, so naturally she teams up with a street urchin fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Nick calls her "cute," and an interesting line she retorts with is, "Other rabbits can call each other that, but you can't." And the dynamic of predator and prey is put in the foreground, as the weaker animals grow fearful of what their more powerful friends could be capable of doing.
It's all fascinating stuff, and the world of Zootopia itself is a wonder to behold. Laid out very much like a theme park, the city features "zones" where different animals of different climates live (a rainforest zone, a snow zone, etc.), surrounding a central city where animals go to work and live a regular 9 to 5 life. An early chase scene moves from the regular city to a mouse sized neighborhood where our heroes suddenly become Godzilla sized monsters.
But, like many films out of the Disney Animation Studio, the film doesn't fully commit to its bold premise. Wreck-it Ralph (2012) has a great moment where the eventual villain convinces our hero that if he helps his friend, it could mean her demise. That's a great, nuanced story, but unfortunately it squanders that storyline for a more traditional villain. The same goes for Zootopia, where the central mystery is a fascinating analogy for real world race relations, but takes a turn I suspected, but hoped it wouldn't.
But that's the price of family-friendly entertainment. Zootopia proves that Disney's output has been overall stronger than Pixar's (although none of their films can hold a candle to Inside Out). But I hope Disney can move past the need for a villain in their movie. Pixar usually employs villains as well, but their motivations make sense and their defeat is sometimes surprising and unique. Zootopia's villain is a lame cop-out that I saw coming a mile away, and was an ultimately unnecessary edition to the story.
Still, this is a fun, delightful, and mostly very smart movie. True to most Disney films, it is one adults can enjoy as well as their kids. I just wish the movie did even more with its bold premise. Disney has been mocking its own formula for quite some time now; its time they actually broke it.
Set in an anthropomorphic world where animals have evolved beyond their roles as predator and prey, the movie follows Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny determined to be the first rabbit on the police force in the metropolis of Zootopia. Its the same "if you work hard, you can achieve your dreams" angle that is a favorite of the Disney stable, but rarely have they applied it to someone breaking the mold and tearing down stereotypes.
After she graduates as valedictorian and is assigned to ZPD (Zootopia Police Department), she moves to the big city from her humble small town and discovers that the urban environment is not very friendly, and that just because she was the best at her school, she will not get special treatment (her chief is a Ram played by Idris Elba, a great touch). Assigned to parking duty, she eventually snags a piece of a larger case involving missing animals, and sets out to solve the mystery or else lose her job.
The film plays draws interesting parallels to real world racial tensions; rabbits have preconceived notions about foxes as wily, sly, and untrustworthy, so naturally she teams up with a street urchin fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Nick calls her "cute," and an interesting line she retorts with is, "Other rabbits can call each other that, but you can't." And the dynamic of predator and prey is put in the foreground, as the weaker animals grow fearful of what their more powerful friends could be capable of doing.
It's all fascinating stuff, and the world of Zootopia itself is a wonder to behold. Laid out very much like a theme park, the city features "zones" where different animals of different climates live (a rainforest zone, a snow zone, etc.), surrounding a central city where animals go to work and live a regular 9 to 5 life. An early chase scene moves from the regular city to a mouse sized neighborhood where our heroes suddenly become Godzilla sized monsters.
But, like many films out of the Disney Animation Studio, the film doesn't fully commit to its bold premise. Wreck-it Ralph (2012) has a great moment where the eventual villain convinces our hero that if he helps his friend, it could mean her demise. That's a great, nuanced story, but unfortunately it squanders that storyline for a more traditional villain. The same goes for Zootopia, where the central mystery is a fascinating analogy for real world race relations, but takes a turn I suspected, but hoped it wouldn't.
But that's the price of family-friendly entertainment. Zootopia proves that Disney's output has been overall stronger than Pixar's (although none of their films can hold a candle to Inside Out). But I hope Disney can move past the need for a villain in their movie. Pixar usually employs villains as well, but their motivations make sense and their defeat is sometimes surprising and unique. Zootopia's villain is a lame cop-out that I saw coming a mile away, and was an ultimately unnecessary edition to the story.
Still, this is a fun, delightful, and mostly very smart movie. True to most Disney films, it is one adults can enjoy as well as their kids. I just wish the movie did even more with its bold premise. Disney has been mocking its own formula for quite some time now; its time they actually broke it.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
We have arrived at a titular moment in comic book mythos; two of the most well-known superheroes have been pitted against one another in the gladiator match to end all gladiator matches. It's a double billing sure to fill many multiplex seats this weekend, as the Caped Crusader goes up against the Man of Steel. And the biggest question on everyone's minds will be, "Why are they fighting?"
Good question. I guess it's up to you whether the movie satisfactorily answers that. For Batman's part (Ben Affleck), the motivations seem to make sense. The opening credits take place over a recreation of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, an origin story as familiar as Krypton's destruction or Peter Parker's spider bite. This is followed by a very effective scene set at the climax of 2013's bombastic Man of Steel, except this time we get a ground-level perspective as Bruce Wayne races into the carnage to save whoever he can. Witnessing first-hand the kind of destruction Superman (Henry Cavil) is capable of, Wayne grows fearful of a power that cannot be contained and becomes obsessed with finding a way to stop him, should Superman's loyalties ever be in question (to quote Wayne at one point: "If there is even a 1% chance he is evil, we must take that as absolute," which seems rather extreme to me).
Superman's motivations, on the other hand, are a little vaguer and harder to describe without being spoilery. Suffice to say, he is forced into it because he has no other choice, although I find it hard to believe he couldn't foil the evil plot forcing him into this battle royale. For his part, Superman (or Clark Kent) spends most of the movie dealing with the public's skeptic eye of his role in the world. Now that a God exists, can he be trusted? And though he does a lot of good, Superman's few missteps are enough to hold congressional hearings prosecuting him for the destruction he is partially responsible for.
I've been dancing around a succinct plot summary and that is because there really is none to give. The movie is so overstuffed with plots that it's hard to know where to begin. How about Lois Lane's (Amy Adams) quest to identify a bullet never before developed by arms dealers? Or Lex Luthor's (Jesse Eisenberg) quest to import kryptonite to build a weapon to make sure Superman doesn't go unchecked? Or the senator (Holly Hunter) leading the hearings against Superman? Or Clark Kent's criticism of Batman's vigilante justice? Or Batman's hunt for an arms dealer known as the White Portuguese?
Scripted by David S. Goyer (who co-wrote The Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel) and Chris Terrio (writer of Argo), and directed by Zack Snyder, the movie never gracefully moves between all of these plot points. There are multiple times dream sequences are employed, and the audience isn't aware of it until things start getting really weird. That's a fine writing trick, but three times is just lazy and I got a little tired of being deceived. Other scenes just start on a medium shot of a character, no establishing shots of where we are, and we are launched into dialogue. In fact, the pace of the first 90 minutes is more or less like this, with the audience having to pay rapt attention or else miss the whole point of the scene.
This is nothing new with Goyer's writing style. But at least with Christopher Nolan directing, you felt like you could follow the chaos of Goyer's structure. Snyder, on the other hand, is not good with subtlety, and when Lex Luthor sneaks a dead body onto an alien spaceship, I couldn't figure out until 30 minute later where the spaceship even was or how he got there. I fancy myself fairly attentive, and I think the lack of establishing shots lends itself to the confusion.
Very few things in this movie are established. It seems like this is catered for the comic book lovers that can fill in the blanks with everything they know, but for plebeians like myself, they just raised more questions. Gotham and Metropolis apparently share a harbor, but this has never been established in any movies, and is barely established here. Bruce Wayne's family manor is a burned wreckage, but why? Batman at one point looks at a Robin costume with a spray painted message reading "Haha, Joke's on you bats!" I guess this refers to an incident where Joker killed Robin, but we've never seen that on film, and it lands with little impact here.
I'm fine with easter eggs being thrown into these movies that are for the fans, and that I won't get. But the things I mentioned above are at least somewhat crucial to the central conflict, at least in terms of motivating our characters. There's a great sentiment that when movies are adapted from books, some things that are unclear will make sense when you read the book. That's great, except a work of art should stand on its own and provide the audience with the context they deserve. Unless the express intent of the artist is for you to read the book as well, it's just sloppy filmmaking.
Part of this comes from DC/Warner Bros.' mad rush to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man (2008) and the other Phase One movies all effectively set-up the major players, culminating in the juggernaut The Avengers (2012), and suddenly DC realized they needed to get Justice League off the ground, stat. But who cares? There are teasers of the other members in this film, very lazily shoehorned in before the final battle, and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) makes an epic entrance in the climax. But I can't help but feel if DC had proceeded more like Marvel in building up to this Batman v Superman title it would have felt more rewarding. Man of Steel, for all its issues, at least set-up Superman and his place in the universe. I guess the issue was if you start with the Superman movie, you can't really make another one without addressing him since the presence of Alien Jesus can't be ignored.
Not to mention Batman's whole mantra is just thrown out the window. Famously, Batman's one rule that keeps him from being a criminal is he does not kill. It's his one moral code that keeps him sane. Yet this Batman kills indiscriminately, firing guns at bad guys and mowing down more henchmen than James Bond. I suppose the burned down Wayne Manor and Robin suit help explain this? Or is Snyder's version just a homicidal maniac?
The things is, I didn't hate this movie. I was actually entertained. I liked it more than Snyder's Man of Steel, and didn't think it was as awful as the critics made it out to be. But I obviously still have problems with it, the biggest of which is the serious tone. Nolan handled Batman in a serious manner and grounded him in a reality that was believable. These movies want to do the same thing, but there are so many silly sci-fi elements that I wish it would just embrace the honestly campy nature of Batman and Superman fighting. The fight itself is well done, and actually pretty funny. Batman of course employs Kryptonite to make the match more even, but there are moments of comedy when the Kryptonite wears off and Batman's punches land on Superman's face with metallic thuds.
I should briefly talk about the performances. For all the crying over his casting, Affleck does a great job as Batman. Cavil and Adams are fine in their returning roles. Jeremy Irons is fantastic as Alfred, a fun new take on the usually subservient butler. Eisenberg is really the only misstep here, playing Lex Luthor with so many tics it's hard not to recall Robert Downey, Jr's famous speech in Tropic Thunder about over doing stuff like this.
SPOILERS!
Finally, the movie ends with a ballsy twist that would seem surprising if you don't know what Doomsday's presence in the movie means (he's the big slime monster that is the real foe in the end). But it's a twist that, like most of what happens, is meaningless. It's a lazy attempt to invest pathos into the end. But does anyone really believe that the new status quo at the end will stand? Because I don't. There's no way they will proceed. It's a twist that will be rendered as meaningless as the end of Wrath of Khan.
END SPOILERS!
The spectacle of this film is something to behold. It's a screen-pairing that nerds and casual fans alike have been waiting for for decades. But that's what I really wish we got; a pairing. A team-up. Sure Justice League is right around the corner. But that's going to add Aquaman and the Flash and Cyborg, and make the whole thing overstuffed. I wish we could have gotten Batman and Superman teaming up for the whole film, instead of being adversaries until near the end. But I guess Batman v Superman is a better poster than Batman & Superman.
Good question. I guess it's up to you whether the movie satisfactorily answers that. For Batman's part (Ben Affleck), the motivations seem to make sense. The opening credits take place over a recreation of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, an origin story as familiar as Krypton's destruction or Peter Parker's spider bite. This is followed by a very effective scene set at the climax of 2013's bombastic Man of Steel, except this time we get a ground-level perspective as Bruce Wayne races into the carnage to save whoever he can. Witnessing first-hand the kind of destruction Superman (Henry Cavil) is capable of, Wayne grows fearful of a power that cannot be contained and becomes obsessed with finding a way to stop him, should Superman's loyalties ever be in question (to quote Wayne at one point: "If there is even a 1% chance he is evil, we must take that as absolute," which seems rather extreme to me).
Superman's motivations, on the other hand, are a little vaguer and harder to describe without being spoilery. Suffice to say, he is forced into it because he has no other choice, although I find it hard to believe he couldn't foil the evil plot forcing him into this battle royale. For his part, Superman (or Clark Kent) spends most of the movie dealing with the public's skeptic eye of his role in the world. Now that a God exists, can he be trusted? And though he does a lot of good, Superman's few missteps are enough to hold congressional hearings prosecuting him for the destruction he is partially responsible for.
I've been dancing around a succinct plot summary and that is because there really is none to give. The movie is so overstuffed with plots that it's hard to know where to begin. How about Lois Lane's (Amy Adams) quest to identify a bullet never before developed by arms dealers? Or Lex Luthor's (Jesse Eisenberg) quest to import kryptonite to build a weapon to make sure Superman doesn't go unchecked? Or the senator (Holly Hunter) leading the hearings against Superman? Or Clark Kent's criticism of Batman's vigilante justice? Or Batman's hunt for an arms dealer known as the White Portuguese?
Scripted by David S. Goyer (who co-wrote The Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel) and Chris Terrio (writer of Argo), and directed by Zack Snyder, the movie never gracefully moves between all of these plot points. There are multiple times dream sequences are employed, and the audience isn't aware of it until things start getting really weird. That's a fine writing trick, but three times is just lazy and I got a little tired of being deceived. Other scenes just start on a medium shot of a character, no establishing shots of where we are, and we are launched into dialogue. In fact, the pace of the first 90 minutes is more or less like this, with the audience having to pay rapt attention or else miss the whole point of the scene.
This is nothing new with Goyer's writing style. But at least with Christopher Nolan directing, you felt like you could follow the chaos of Goyer's structure. Snyder, on the other hand, is not good with subtlety, and when Lex Luthor sneaks a dead body onto an alien spaceship, I couldn't figure out until 30 minute later where the spaceship even was or how he got there. I fancy myself fairly attentive, and I think the lack of establishing shots lends itself to the confusion.
Very few things in this movie are established. It seems like this is catered for the comic book lovers that can fill in the blanks with everything they know, but for plebeians like myself, they just raised more questions. Gotham and Metropolis apparently share a harbor, but this has never been established in any movies, and is barely established here. Bruce Wayne's family manor is a burned wreckage, but why? Batman at one point looks at a Robin costume with a spray painted message reading "Haha, Joke's on you bats!" I guess this refers to an incident where Joker killed Robin, but we've never seen that on film, and it lands with little impact here.
I'm fine with easter eggs being thrown into these movies that are for the fans, and that I won't get. But the things I mentioned above are at least somewhat crucial to the central conflict, at least in terms of motivating our characters. There's a great sentiment that when movies are adapted from books, some things that are unclear will make sense when you read the book. That's great, except a work of art should stand on its own and provide the audience with the context they deserve. Unless the express intent of the artist is for you to read the book as well, it's just sloppy filmmaking.
Part of this comes from DC/Warner Bros.' mad rush to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man (2008) and the other Phase One movies all effectively set-up the major players, culminating in the juggernaut The Avengers (2012), and suddenly DC realized they needed to get Justice League off the ground, stat. But who cares? There are teasers of the other members in this film, very lazily shoehorned in before the final battle, and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) makes an epic entrance in the climax. But I can't help but feel if DC had proceeded more like Marvel in building up to this Batman v Superman title it would have felt more rewarding. Man of Steel, for all its issues, at least set-up Superman and his place in the universe. I guess the issue was if you start with the Superman movie, you can't really make another one without addressing him since the presence of Alien Jesus can't be ignored.
Not to mention Batman's whole mantra is just thrown out the window. Famously, Batman's one rule that keeps him from being a criminal is he does not kill. It's his one moral code that keeps him sane. Yet this Batman kills indiscriminately, firing guns at bad guys and mowing down more henchmen than James Bond. I suppose the burned down Wayne Manor and Robin suit help explain this? Or is Snyder's version just a homicidal maniac?
The things is, I didn't hate this movie. I was actually entertained. I liked it more than Snyder's Man of Steel, and didn't think it was as awful as the critics made it out to be. But I obviously still have problems with it, the biggest of which is the serious tone. Nolan handled Batman in a serious manner and grounded him in a reality that was believable. These movies want to do the same thing, but there are so many silly sci-fi elements that I wish it would just embrace the honestly campy nature of Batman and Superman fighting. The fight itself is well done, and actually pretty funny. Batman of course employs Kryptonite to make the match more even, but there are moments of comedy when the Kryptonite wears off and Batman's punches land on Superman's face with metallic thuds.
I should briefly talk about the performances. For all the crying over his casting, Affleck does a great job as Batman. Cavil and Adams are fine in their returning roles. Jeremy Irons is fantastic as Alfred, a fun new take on the usually subservient butler. Eisenberg is really the only misstep here, playing Lex Luthor with so many tics it's hard not to recall Robert Downey, Jr's famous speech in Tropic Thunder about over doing stuff like this.
SPOILERS!
Finally, the movie ends with a ballsy twist that would seem surprising if you don't know what Doomsday's presence in the movie means (he's the big slime monster that is the real foe in the end). But it's a twist that, like most of what happens, is meaningless. It's a lazy attempt to invest pathos into the end. But does anyone really believe that the new status quo at the end will stand? Because I don't. There's no way they will proceed. It's a twist that will be rendered as meaningless as the end of Wrath of Khan.
END SPOILERS!
The spectacle of this film is something to behold. It's a screen-pairing that nerds and casual fans alike have been waiting for for decades. But that's what I really wish we got; a pairing. A team-up. Sure Justice League is right around the corner. But that's going to add Aquaman and the Flash and Cyborg, and make the whole thing overstuffed. I wish we could have gotten Batman and Superman teaming up for the whole film, instead of being adversaries until near the end. But I guess Batman v Superman is a better poster than Batman & Superman.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Many people who flocked to see 10 Cloverfield Lane this weekend were probably expecting a pretty straightforward sequel to the 2008 January hit, a found footage move about a monster terrorizing Manhattan and the group of 20-somethings just trying to survive. Directed by Matt Reeves, that first Cloverfield was a masterstroke of viral marketing. The first trailer premiered before the first Transformers (2007) film, omitting the title completely from the trailer leaving audiences wondering what it was called, other than "Untitled J.J. Abrams Movie" (he serves as producer on both films).
So when two months ago a trailer was dropped announcing a sequel, and that sequel would be out in March, we got another example of some pretty ingenious marketing. I don't know if general audiences were clamoring for a Cloverfield follow-up, the promise of one suddenly popping up just around the corner was enticing enough to generate enough buzz to grab this movie a decent $24 million opening weekend. With an estimated $5 million production budget, that's not too shabby.
What audiences will get, instead, is a fairly well-directed thriller that only really ties in with the Cloverfield universe (if such a thing can be said) at the end. The film opens with Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving behind her life in New York and fiancee over an unheard argument. Driving for 100s of miles, she ends up in the country and gets into a car accident. When she wakes, she is handcuffed, attached to an IV, and her leg is set in a make-shift cast to deal with a sprain. She soon discovers she is prisoner to Howard (John Goodman). Or is she?
The movie does a lot of toying with the audiences emotions in terms of whether Howard is to be trusted. Michelle soon discovers she is in Howard's bunker, an underground living space with enough food to last years. There is another fellow there with a broken arm called Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), and Howard explains that a bomb has gone off and fallout has made the outsider world uninhabitable.
The question, naturally, becomes about whether Howard is telling the truth or not. He has a lot of crazy theories about what is happening; that Russia or Al-Qaeda or even aliens are attacking. And though he offers up a lot of proof, Michelle is never quite trusting of him and everything he tells her.
I won't really say much more about the movie's plot except that overall I was surprised by how effective this film was. There is a pervading sense of claustrophobia and terror throughout, and the movie does an excellent job of laying out the space of the bunker and making it feel familiar.
Directed by newcomer Dan Trachtenberg, the film is also extraordinarily suspenseful. An opening title card sequence announces the movie's presence with exciting sound design, and there is a dinner scene that slowly builds to an explosive climax. Really much of the movie is a bit of a slow burn, as some of what Howard says turns out to be real, while other things he says are not.
The film finally ties back into Clovefield at the end with a final 15-minutes that almost feel out of left field and unwelcome. If not for the name attached, the ending would probably be a completely surprising, out-of-nowhere twist. But because it has the name, it has certain duties to fill.
Which isn't a bad thing. Hell, I kind of like the notion of Cloverfield movies telling varying stories about the same incident from different individual stories. The first movie dealt with how a couple of Manhattanites deal with a monster attack, while this deals with one woman's struggle as she is held captive, or is rescued (take your pick), by a different kind of monster (I'm so insightful!).
Ultimately this a solid thriller. It's fairly predictable, but Goodman and Winstead are both great and the movie achieves a lot through primarily dialogue in a confined setting. It's a surprising film and one I actually recommend people check out. As long as you're not gearing yourself for 100% straight up Cloverfield, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see.
So when two months ago a trailer was dropped announcing a sequel, and that sequel would be out in March, we got another example of some pretty ingenious marketing. I don't know if general audiences were clamoring for a Cloverfield follow-up, the promise of one suddenly popping up just around the corner was enticing enough to generate enough buzz to grab this movie a decent $24 million opening weekend. With an estimated $5 million production budget, that's not too shabby.
What audiences will get, instead, is a fairly well-directed thriller that only really ties in with the Cloverfield universe (if such a thing can be said) at the end. The film opens with Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving behind her life in New York and fiancee over an unheard argument. Driving for 100s of miles, she ends up in the country and gets into a car accident. When she wakes, she is handcuffed, attached to an IV, and her leg is set in a make-shift cast to deal with a sprain. She soon discovers she is prisoner to Howard (John Goodman). Or is she?
The movie does a lot of toying with the audiences emotions in terms of whether Howard is to be trusted. Michelle soon discovers she is in Howard's bunker, an underground living space with enough food to last years. There is another fellow there with a broken arm called Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), and Howard explains that a bomb has gone off and fallout has made the outsider world uninhabitable.
The question, naturally, becomes about whether Howard is telling the truth or not. He has a lot of crazy theories about what is happening; that Russia or Al-Qaeda or even aliens are attacking. And though he offers up a lot of proof, Michelle is never quite trusting of him and everything he tells her.
I won't really say much more about the movie's plot except that overall I was surprised by how effective this film was. There is a pervading sense of claustrophobia and terror throughout, and the movie does an excellent job of laying out the space of the bunker and making it feel familiar.
Directed by newcomer Dan Trachtenberg, the film is also extraordinarily suspenseful. An opening title card sequence announces the movie's presence with exciting sound design, and there is a dinner scene that slowly builds to an explosive climax. Really much of the movie is a bit of a slow burn, as some of what Howard says turns out to be real, while other things he says are not.
The film finally ties back into Clovefield at the end with a final 15-minutes that almost feel out of left field and unwelcome. If not for the name attached, the ending would probably be a completely surprising, out-of-nowhere twist. But because it has the name, it has certain duties to fill.
Which isn't a bad thing. Hell, I kind of like the notion of Cloverfield movies telling varying stories about the same incident from different individual stories. The first movie dealt with how a couple of Manhattanites deal with a monster attack, while this deals with one woman's struggle as she is held captive, or is rescued (take your pick), by a different kind of monster (I'm so insightful!).
Ultimately this a solid thriller. It's fairly predictable, but Goodman and Winstead are both great and the movie achieves a lot through primarily dialogue in a confined setting. It's a surprising film and one I actually recommend people check out. As long as you're not gearing yourself for 100% straight up Cloverfield, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
88th Annual Academy Awards: Won vs. Predicted
Best Picture
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Best Actor
Won/Predicted: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant
Best Actress
Won/Predicted: Brie Larson for Room
Best Director
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Original Song
Won: "The Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre
Predicted: "'Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Best Original Score
Won/Predicted: The Hateful Eight
Best Foreign Film
Won/Predicted: Son of Saul
Best Live Action Short
Won: Stutterer
Predicted: Shok
Best Documentary
Won/Predicted: Amy
Best Documentary Short
Won: A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness
Predicted: Body Team 12
Best Supporting Actor
Won: Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies
Predicted: Sylvester Stallone for Creed
Best Animated Film
Won/Predicted: Inside Out
Best Animated Short
Won: Bear Story
Predicted: World of Tomorrow
Best Visual Effects
Won: Ex Machina
Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Mixing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Cinematography
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Production Design
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Costume Design
Won: Mad Max: Fury Road
Predicted: Cinderella
Best Supporting Actress
Won/Predicted: Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl
Best Adapted Screenplay
Won/Predicted: The Big Short
Best Original Screenplay
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Overall: 17/24 correct. On par for me. Until next year!
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Best Actor
Won/Predicted: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant
Best Actress
Won/Predicted: Brie Larson for Room
Best Director
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Original Song
Won: "The Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre
Predicted: "'Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Best Original Score
Won/Predicted: The Hateful Eight
Best Foreign Film
Won/Predicted: Son of Saul
Best Live Action Short
Won: Stutterer
Predicted: Shok
Best Documentary
Won/Predicted: Amy
Best Documentary Short
Won: A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness
Predicted: Body Team 12
Best Supporting Actor
Won: Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies
Predicted: Sylvester Stallone for Creed
Best Animated Film
Won/Predicted: Inside Out
Best Animated Short
Won: Bear Story
Predicted: World of Tomorrow
Best Visual Effects
Won: Ex Machina
Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Mixing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Cinematography
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Production Design
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Costume Design
Won: Mad Max: Fury Road
Predicted: Cinderella
Best Supporting Actress
Won/Predicted: Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl
Best Adapted Screenplay
Won/Predicted: The Big Short
Best Original Screenplay
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Overall: 17/24 correct. On par for me. Until next year!
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Top 10 of 2015
It's the time of the year again! Oscars are here, and I am officially ready to release my top 10. I usually wait longer than normal because I'm a working person who has limited time to see what's out. That said, I'm pretty happy with my list this year. Without further ado, here is my personal top 10 films of 2015!
10. Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, 135 min. PG-13
I had a somewhat reserved reaction to J.J. Abrams' revival of the this franchise. The epic space opera that pits ultimate good against ultimate evil was thought to be all but dead, but then Disney went and bought the rights and now we're getting a new movie every year. At first, I had the same criticisms of this one that everyone else did: it's essentially the first movie all over again, down to an ultimate planet-sized weapon that needs to be destroyed, a villain with daddy issues, and a mentor that dies. But, upon a second viewing, I threw those criticisms aside and enjoyed what is overall a very solid, entertaining entry in the Star Wars saga. It nicely sets up what I am confident will be a stellar eighth entry, with a likable new cast of characters mixed in with our old favorites. Basically, it gets everything right that George Lucas didn't with the prequels.
9. Amy, 128 min. R
Asif Kapadia's heart-wrenching account of Amy Winehouse's life is a fantastic and fascinating look at celebrity and tabloid life. The film incorporates almost no talking-head interviews, instead rolling endless B-Roll of Amy's life, collected from personal recordings and paparazzi footage, with various accounts of Winehouse underneath. It's a fascinating style that creates a compelling narrative that could have so easily been a by-the-numbers Behind the Music doc. Instead, it paints an intimate portrait of a tortured soul, and makes us feel as if we knew Amy.
8. Room, 118 min. R
I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing, and I advise you do the same. So if you haven't seen this film and know nothing, don't read on. Lenny Abrahamson's dour, depressing film details one woman's (Brie Larson) imprisonment by a crazy man. Her son (Jacob Tremblay), born in this prison, is taught that the only world is the room they live in. So when he is told the truth of their situation, and escapes, his integration into society becomes a fascinating case study of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's a gripping film that goes farther than you might expect (other directors may have ended this film at the halfway point), and pays off in extraordinary performances, especially from newcomer Tremblay.
7. Brooklyn, 111 min. R
This is overall a simple film that defies a quick plot summary, but here it goes: Eilis (Saoirse Ronan), a young Irish girl, immigrates to New York in 1950s America. She quickly adapts to life there, gets an Italian boyfriend, and then has to go back to Ireland for unforeseen circumstances, where she realizes she may want to stay. By all accounts its a small story, and the outcome really means nothing except to one person, but the film, directed by John Crowley from a Nick Hornby screenplay, is very compelling and draws you in. I was surprised how much I cared, and the film, though simple, is very well done. There's nothing wrong with that.
6. It Follows, 100 min. R
David Robert Mitchell's cool, suspenseful horror film is a nice wake-up call to how most horror films should be done. The film relies less on jump scares and more on a pervading sense of dread that permeates the entire film. The film's monster, the It of the title, is a ghoul that follows you if you have sex with the wrong person (a fairly obvious STD metaphor). Set in a weird, 1980s-like world with clamshell kindles, the movie evokes horror films of that decade and before. You continually scan the horizon for It in every scene, as It can take any shape or form. Remarkably well done and chilling.
5. The Hateful Eight, 187 min. R
Tarantino's eighth film (cheekily titled as such) is basically the director at his most indulgent. Over 3 hours if you saw the roadshow version, this film has accurately been described as the bar scene from Inglourious Basterds drawn out to epic lengths:; a dialogue-drive first half, and rather bloody second. The plot brings eight rather different characters together in a remote cabin during a blizzard, circa late 1800s. Tarantino's entertaining dialogue is on full display, as well as his penchant for very entertaining characters. The ending is a little predictable, but the ride is enjoyable as hell, especially for Tarantino fans. Shot in glorious Super Panavision, it was definitely one of my favorite experiences of 2015.
4. Mad Max: Fury Road, 120 min. R
Mad Max is the shot in the arm action films have been needing for a long time. There is barely any narrative to speak of; yet the movie's plot is one of the most engaging of the year. It speaks volumes with visuals and little dialogue. Many have drooled over this movie, and I join them in the revelry; its an endlessly inventive, exhilarating thrill ride. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it yet, you owe it to yourself to check out one of the best action movies every made.
3. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, 115 min. NR
This Israeli film struck a chord with me back in March and has stuck with me ever since. It details the years long struggle of one woman, Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz, also the co-writer and co-director), in her quest to divorce her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian). But in Israel, where the film takes place, only rabbis can end a marriage, and for that to happen either someone must have violated the marriage, or both parties must agree. Viviane's husband refuses to end the marriage, and has done nothing wrong, so her trial persists for months and years on end. It's a gripping film, although its only location is the court rooms where the rabbis hear testimony. But it's a great one that deserves to be seen by a wider audience.
2. Spotlight, 128 min. R
A modern-day All the President's Men that follows the intrepid reporters of the Boston Globe as they uncover the clergy sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic church, unveiling decades of corruption and cover-up for pedophilic priests. Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Mark Ruffalo lead a great cast through a rather dry-sounding story. The plot involves watching people investigate and uncover things, and makes it damn interesting. Its an infuriating film, and everyone I know who has seen it agrees it is excellent. One of those rare films that lives up to the hype.
1. Inside Out, 95 min. PG
Where to even begin with this one. Pixar has always been good at tugging at our emotions, and now they deal directly with them. A modern Herman's Head, the movie follows Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader), anthropomorphized emotions of 11-year-old Riley. Riley's life is happy until her family up and moves from Minnesota to San Francisco, and her emotions struggle to deal with the new change. When Joy and Sadness are sucked out of the control center, Riley is left being a moody preteen. Beyond that, this is an incredibly mature family film whose central conflict is accepting sadness as an emotion that is ok. The character Joy fails to recognize Sadness' place until she realizes that she generates empathy, that people come to your aide when you ask. This all culminates in a climax so emotionally wrenching that I haven't been able to get through the scene in four viewings without at least tears welling up in my eyes. It's a movie that at one point will have you laughing, and at another will have you in tears. Its hands-down one of Pixar's best, and the best film of the year.
10. Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, 135 min. PG-13
I had a somewhat reserved reaction to J.J. Abrams' revival of the this franchise. The epic space opera that pits ultimate good against ultimate evil was thought to be all but dead, but then Disney went and bought the rights and now we're getting a new movie every year. At first, I had the same criticisms of this one that everyone else did: it's essentially the first movie all over again, down to an ultimate planet-sized weapon that needs to be destroyed, a villain with daddy issues, and a mentor that dies. But, upon a second viewing, I threw those criticisms aside and enjoyed what is overall a very solid, entertaining entry in the Star Wars saga. It nicely sets up what I am confident will be a stellar eighth entry, with a likable new cast of characters mixed in with our old favorites. Basically, it gets everything right that George Lucas didn't with the prequels.
9. Amy, 128 min. R
Asif Kapadia's heart-wrenching account of Amy Winehouse's life is a fantastic and fascinating look at celebrity and tabloid life. The film incorporates almost no talking-head interviews, instead rolling endless B-Roll of Amy's life, collected from personal recordings and paparazzi footage, with various accounts of Winehouse underneath. It's a fascinating style that creates a compelling narrative that could have so easily been a by-the-numbers Behind the Music doc. Instead, it paints an intimate portrait of a tortured soul, and makes us feel as if we knew Amy.
8. Room, 118 min. R
I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing, and I advise you do the same. So if you haven't seen this film and know nothing, don't read on. Lenny Abrahamson's dour, depressing film details one woman's (Brie Larson) imprisonment by a crazy man. Her son (Jacob Tremblay), born in this prison, is taught that the only world is the room they live in. So when he is told the truth of their situation, and escapes, his integration into society becomes a fascinating case study of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's a gripping film that goes farther than you might expect (other directors may have ended this film at the halfway point), and pays off in extraordinary performances, especially from newcomer Tremblay.
7. Brooklyn, 111 min. R
This is overall a simple film that defies a quick plot summary, but here it goes: Eilis (Saoirse Ronan), a young Irish girl, immigrates to New York in 1950s America. She quickly adapts to life there, gets an Italian boyfriend, and then has to go back to Ireland for unforeseen circumstances, where she realizes she may want to stay. By all accounts its a small story, and the outcome really means nothing except to one person, but the film, directed by John Crowley from a Nick Hornby screenplay, is very compelling and draws you in. I was surprised how much I cared, and the film, though simple, is very well done. There's nothing wrong with that.
6. It Follows, 100 min. R
David Robert Mitchell's cool, suspenseful horror film is a nice wake-up call to how most horror films should be done. The film relies less on jump scares and more on a pervading sense of dread that permeates the entire film. The film's monster, the It of the title, is a ghoul that follows you if you have sex with the wrong person (a fairly obvious STD metaphor). Set in a weird, 1980s-like world with clamshell kindles, the movie evokes horror films of that decade and before. You continually scan the horizon for It in every scene, as It can take any shape or form. Remarkably well done and chilling.
5. The Hateful Eight, 187 min. R
Tarantino's eighth film (cheekily titled as such) is basically the director at his most indulgent. Over 3 hours if you saw the roadshow version, this film has accurately been described as the bar scene from Inglourious Basterds drawn out to epic lengths:; a dialogue-drive first half, and rather bloody second. The plot brings eight rather different characters together in a remote cabin during a blizzard, circa late 1800s. Tarantino's entertaining dialogue is on full display, as well as his penchant for very entertaining characters. The ending is a little predictable, but the ride is enjoyable as hell, especially for Tarantino fans. Shot in glorious Super Panavision, it was definitely one of my favorite experiences of 2015.
4. Mad Max: Fury Road, 120 min. R
Mad Max is the shot in the arm action films have been needing for a long time. There is barely any narrative to speak of; yet the movie's plot is one of the most engaging of the year. It speaks volumes with visuals and little dialogue. Many have drooled over this movie, and I join them in the revelry; its an endlessly inventive, exhilarating thrill ride. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it yet, you owe it to yourself to check out one of the best action movies every made.
3. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, 115 min. NR
This Israeli film struck a chord with me back in March and has stuck with me ever since. It details the years long struggle of one woman, Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz, also the co-writer and co-director), in her quest to divorce her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian). But in Israel, where the film takes place, only rabbis can end a marriage, and for that to happen either someone must have violated the marriage, or both parties must agree. Viviane's husband refuses to end the marriage, and has done nothing wrong, so her trial persists for months and years on end. It's a gripping film, although its only location is the court rooms where the rabbis hear testimony. But it's a great one that deserves to be seen by a wider audience.
2. Spotlight, 128 min. R
A modern-day All the President's Men that follows the intrepid reporters of the Boston Globe as they uncover the clergy sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic church, unveiling decades of corruption and cover-up for pedophilic priests. Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Mark Ruffalo lead a great cast through a rather dry-sounding story. The plot involves watching people investigate and uncover things, and makes it damn interesting. Its an infuriating film, and everyone I know who has seen it agrees it is excellent. One of those rare films that lives up to the hype.
1. Inside Out, 95 min. PG
Where to even begin with this one. Pixar has always been good at tugging at our emotions, and now they deal directly with them. A modern Herman's Head, the movie follows Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader), anthropomorphized emotions of 11-year-old Riley. Riley's life is happy until her family up and moves from Minnesota to San Francisco, and her emotions struggle to deal with the new change. When Joy and Sadness are sucked out of the control center, Riley is left being a moody preteen. Beyond that, this is an incredibly mature family film whose central conflict is accepting sadness as an emotion that is ok. The character Joy fails to recognize Sadness' place until she realizes that she generates empathy, that people come to your aide when you ask. This all culminates in a climax so emotionally wrenching that I haven't been able to get through the scene in four viewings without at least tears welling up in my eyes. It's a movie that at one point will have you laughing, and at another will have you in tears. Its hands-down one of Pixar's best, and the best film of the year.
The 88th Annual Academy Awards: Predictions
And we roll around to another year of Oscar voting. I can I certainly have no idea what will really happen tomorrow? Revenant love? Mad Max unexpectedly triumphs? We'll know tomorrow, but for now, I'm throwing down my predictions for all the Oscars, and boy am I out on a limb. I'm predicting almost no Revenant love, lots of Mad Max love in the tech, and an unlikely best picture winner.
Best Picture
For the first time in a long time, we have a 3-way split from the guilds, which is absolutely no help when it comes to picking Best Picture. Usually you can rely on the guilds to be consistent, but since the PGA went to Big Short, DGA went to Revenant, and SAG went to Spotlight, this is really anyones game. And I'm going with Spotlight, probably the least likely of the three to win. And here's why: the actors make up the largest body of voters at the Academy, so if they voted for Spotlight at their show, then they will vote for it again. Not only that, but Spotlight is the only film I've heard unanimously from everyone I know that they love it. It's marketing itself as an important film and will probably motivate to vote for it on that alone. Members love an important film. Big Short also has this going for it, as it is about various Wall Streeters predicting the market collapse, and is big exclamation point on not repeating the whole debacle. But it didn't strike a chord with me, and I don't think it carries enough heft. Revenant is obviously the heavy contender frontrunner, but never in the history of the Oscars have two films directed by the same person won back-to-back Best Picture awards (Inarritu directed Birdman last year). And plus, it's a movie that fails to register; I personally didn't care about Leo's struggles. So Spotlight it is. I'm going all in on that.
Prediction: Spotlight
Actor in a Leading Role
It's Leo's year. Everyone knows. He's fine in the movie, he acts his damn heart out. He acts harder than anyone in this category. It's his to lose. And if he does, well, I have no clue who will upset. This one seems obvious.
Prediction: Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant
Actress in a Leading Role
This one also seems locked in, although I'm more invested in Brie Larson winning for Room since she did a damn good job and has always been a fantastic actor. I would say Charlotte Rampling perhaps, but she shot herself in the foot with some stupid statement she made about equality. Larson's to lose.
Prediction: Brie Larson in Room
Actor in a Supporting Role
Here is a category where I smell an upset. A lot of people are rooting for Stallone to finally win for his 40-year-long performance as Rocky Balboa, and I'll be reasonably happy if he wins. But Mark Rylance was fantastic in Bridge of Spies, and if the Academy is going to repeat last year where they gave every Best Pic nominee one Oscar, then Rylance is the most likely winner. But I won't vote against everyone's favorite boxer.
Prediction: Sylvester Stallone in Creed
Actress in a Supporting Role
Kate Winslet won the SAG but everyone seems to think Alicia Vikander, who had a great year between Danish Girl and Ex Machina, will take the prize. Who I am to disagree?
Prediction: Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl
Animated Feature Film
This is a weird category this year, where Pixar and Aardman go up against Charlie Kaufmann's existential crisis stop-motion film. But Inside Out will be the winner. More then just proving Pixar can still be great, this film has moved me more than any film in recent memory. A fantastically mature family film.
Prediction: Inside Out
Cinematography
Roger Deakins will lose again. Which is a shame because his work is the best part of the otherwise overrated Sicario. Mad Max would also be a strong contender here, as well as Hateful Eight's much touted Super Panavision 70 mm film. But The Revenant truly is a beautiful film to look at, and will be Emmanuel Lubezki's 3rd year winning. That's the only thing going against him, but I doubt the Oscar voters remember he's won in the past.
Prediction: The Revenant
Costume Design
The rule of thumb here is to pick the costumiest movie in the bunch, that produces the best dresses. So that movie would be Cinderella. A lot of people seem to think Mad Max, but I feel the costumes are showy or glamorous enough. That movie's strength comes in the make-up more.
Prediction: Cinderella
Directing
For this one, I will not defy the guild. DGA says Inarritu, I see no reason to think otherwise. Shooting The Revenant was a hell of an experience, I hear. I would lover George Miller to win this, but sadly that is merely a dream and will not be a reality.
Prediction: The Revenant
Documentary Feature
I've seen 3 of the 5, and Amy is still the best. A fantastic doc about the pop star's tabloid and drug filled life that led to her early death, joining the 27 club. Cartel Land was fascinating but uneven, and if the Academy didn't award Josh Oppenheimer for Act of Killing, they certainly won't for the follow-up, The Look of Silence, as wrenching as it is.
Prediction: Amy
Documentary Short Subject
I have no idea. So I went with the consensus.
Prediction: Body Team 12
Film Editing
This one has to be Mad Max. Action films call the most attention to their editing if they are bad, and you don't notice it if it is great. Mad Max is a film where the editing truly is invisible, propelling along the intense narrative and many amazing car chases. Big Short is the other likely winner.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Foreign Language Film
I missed out on these this year. But Son of Saul seems to be the favorite. So it is the one I will choose.
Prediction: Son of Saul
Makeup and Hairstyling
Definitely one of Mad Max's greatest strengths. The look of Immortan Joe, of the warboys, of the various members of the Citadel and Furiosa's grease-stained forehead. Although Tom Hardy's hair in Revenant was pretty convincing too.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Music (Original Score)
Ennio Morricone's score is the one to beat here. Of course John Williams may be given one more for Star Wars, but I think they'll go with the master composer here.
Prediction: The Hateful Eight
Music (Original Song)
Despite its overplayed nature, I really liked "Earned It." It's a catchy, mysterious tune. But "Til it Happens to You" comes from the doc The Hunting Ground about rape on college campuses. It's also a sad song, sung by Lady GaGa, who had a strong show at the Oscars last year singing The Sound of Music. I really have no feeling either way (and am especially surprised Sam Smith is here, but Furious 7 song "See You Again" isn't), but I assume Lady GaGa will win. It's a song with a message, and if I'm going with Spotlight in the top spot, than I must go with this too.
Prediction: "Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Production Design
Another Mad Max win. That citadel is pretty sweet. And so are those cars.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Short Film (Animated)
I only have seen World of Tomorrow because Netflix had it. It isn't the favorite, but I liked it a lot, so why not vote with my heart here.
Prediction: World of Tomorrow
Short Film (Live Action)
Haven't seen any of these. So...
Prediction: Shok
Sound Editing and Mixing
I know they are different, but my prediction is the same for both. Mad Max. Revenant is also likely for either or both. But I suck at predicting which it will be, so why not go all in.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Visual Effects
Mad Max, although Star Wars could easily take this. But there are so many visual effects going on and you don't even notice them because they are serving the story, rather than driving it. I was amazed seeing what was fake and what wasn't.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
I'm giving this to Big Short, because it won the WGA.
Prediction: The Big Short
Writing (Original Screenplay)
Spotlight! It also won the WGA. Also, I'm saying it will win Best Picture but didn't pick it to win any of the other categories. So its gotta win something else.
Prediction: Spotlight
Check back tomorrow when I post my results!
Best Picture
For the first time in a long time, we have a 3-way split from the guilds, which is absolutely no help when it comes to picking Best Picture. Usually you can rely on the guilds to be consistent, but since the PGA went to Big Short, DGA went to Revenant, and SAG went to Spotlight, this is really anyones game. And I'm going with Spotlight, probably the least likely of the three to win. And here's why: the actors make up the largest body of voters at the Academy, so if they voted for Spotlight at their show, then they will vote for it again. Not only that, but Spotlight is the only film I've heard unanimously from everyone I know that they love it. It's marketing itself as an important film and will probably motivate to vote for it on that alone. Members love an important film. Big Short also has this going for it, as it is about various Wall Streeters predicting the market collapse, and is big exclamation point on not repeating the whole debacle. But it didn't strike a chord with me, and I don't think it carries enough heft. Revenant is obviously the heavy contender frontrunner, but never in the history of the Oscars have two films directed by the same person won back-to-back Best Picture awards (Inarritu directed Birdman last year). And plus, it's a movie that fails to register; I personally didn't care about Leo's struggles. So Spotlight it is. I'm going all in on that.
Prediction: Spotlight
Actor in a Leading Role
It's Leo's year. Everyone knows. He's fine in the movie, he acts his damn heart out. He acts harder than anyone in this category. It's his to lose. And if he does, well, I have no clue who will upset. This one seems obvious.
Prediction: Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant
Actress in a Leading Role
This one also seems locked in, although I'm more invested in Brie Larson winning for Room since she did a damn good job and has always been a fantastic actor. I would say Charlotte Rampling perhaps, but she shot herself in the foot with some stupid statement she made about equality. Larson's to lose.
Prediction: Brie Larson in Room
Actor in a Supporting Role
Here is a category where I smell an upset. A lot of people are rooting for Stallone to finally win for his 40-year-long performance as Rocky Balboa, and I'll be reasonably happy if he wins. But Mark Rylance was fantastic in Bridge of Spies, and if the Academy is going to repeat last year where they gave every Best Pic nominee one Oscar, then Rylance is the most likely winner. But I won't vote against everyone's favorite boxer.
Prediction: Sylvester Stallone in Creed
Actress in a Supporting Role
Kate Winslet won the SAG but everyone seems to think Alicia Vikander, who had a great year between Danish Girl and Ex Machina, will take the prize. Who I am to disagree?
Prediction: Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl
Animated Feature Film
This is a weird category this year, where Pixar and Aardman go up against Charlie Kaufmann's existential crisis stop-motion film. But Inside Out will be the winner. More then just proving Pixar can still be great, this film has moved me more than any film in recent memory. A fantastically mature family film.
Prediction: Inside Out
Cinematography
Roger Deakins will lose again. Which is a shame because his work is the best part of the otherwise overrated Sicario. Mad Max would also be a strong contender here, as well as Hateful Eight's much touted Super Panavision 70 mm film. But The Revenant truly is a beautiful film to look at, and will be Emmanuel Lubezki's 3rd year winning. That's the only thing going against him, but I doubt the Oscar voters remember he's won in the past.
Prediction: The Revenant
Costume Design
The rule of thumb here is to pick the costumiest movie in the bunch, that produces the best dresses. So that movie would be Cinderella. A lot of people seem to think Mad Max, but I feel the costumes are showy or glamorous enough. That movie's strength comes in the make-up more.
Prediction: Cinderella
Directing
For this one, I will not defy the guild. DGA says Inarritu, I see no reason to think otherwise. Shooting The Revenant was a hell of an experience, I hear. I would lover George Miller to win this, but sadly that is merely a dream and will not be a reality.
Prediction: The Revenant
Documentary Feature
I've seen 3 of the 5, and Amy is still the best. A fantastic doc about the pop star's tabloid and drug filled life that led to her early death, joining the 27 club. Cartel Land was fascinating but uneven, and if the Academy didn't award Josh Oppenheimer for Act of Killing, they certainly won't for the follow-up, The Look of Silence, as wrenching as it is.
Prediction: Amy
Documentary Short Subject
I have no idea. So I went with the consensus.
Prediction: Body Team 12
Film Editing
This one has to be Mad Max. Action films call the most attention to their editing if they are bad, and you don't notice it if it is great. Mad Max is a film where the editing truly is invisible, propelling along the intense narrative and many amazing car chases. Big Short is the other likely winner.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Foreign Language Film
I missed out on these this year. But Son of Saul seems to be the favorite. So it is the one I will choose.
Prediction: Son of Saul
Makeup and Hairstyling
Definitely one of Mad Max's greatest strengths. The look of Immortan Joe, of the warboys, of the various members of the Citadel and Furiosa's grease-stained forehead. Although Tom Hardy's hair in Revenant was pretty convincing too.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Music (Original Score)
Ennio Morricone's score is the one to beat here. Of course John Williams may be given one more for Star Wars, but I think they'll go with the master composer here.
Prediction: The Hateful Eight
Music (Original Song)
Despite its overplayed nature, I really liked "Earned It." It's a catchy, mysterious tune. But "Til it Happens to You" comes from the doc The Hunting Ground about rape on college campuses. It's also a sad song, sung by Lady GaGa, who had a strong show at the Oscars last year singing The Sound of Music. I really have no feeling either way (and am especially surprised Sam Smith is here, but Furious 7 song "See You Again" isn't), but I assume Lady GaGa will win. It's a song with a message, and if I'm going with Spotlight in the top spot, than I must go with this too.
Prediction: "Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Production Design
Another Mad Max win. That citadel is pretty sweet. And so are those cars.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Short Film (Animated)
I only have seen World of Tomorrow because Netflix had it. It isn't the favorite, but I liked it a lot, so why not vote with my heart here.
Prediction: World of Tomorrow
Short Film (Live Action)
Haven't seen any of these. So...
Prediction: Shok
Sound Editing and Mixing
I know they are different, but my prediction is the same for both. Mad Max. Revenant is also likely for either or both. But I suck at predicting which it will be, so why not go all in.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Visual Effects
Mad Max, although Star Wars could easily take this. But there are so many visual effects going on and you don't even notice them because they are serving the story, rather than driving it. I was amazed seeing what was fake and what wasn't.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
I'm giving this to Big Short, because it won the WGA.
Prediction: The Big Short
Writing (Original Screenplay)
Spotlight! It also won the WGA. Also, I'm saying it will win Best Picture but didn't pick it to win any of the other categories. So its gotta win something else.
Prediction: Spotlight
Check back tomorrow when I post my results!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)